Main Inquiry
- From 2015 to October 2017, he served as a Logistics Support Officer in the Central District. He was involved in managing the district's budgets on the subject of logistics. He knew the defendant when the two were prison guards. In his role as a construction officer, the defendant was subordinate to a command witness. In the professional aspect, the defendant was subordinate to the construction department, since the witness is not an engineer by profession (p. 466).
- The defendant prepared the bills of quantities for the witness and came to the field to take measurements. He did so quickly. The defendant brought the price quote, especially in small projects, the witness raised the bids to the commander, and when approval was given, they moved on with it (p. 467). The defendant had independence in the projects in terms of construction from the moment the approval was received, because he was a professional authority in the field, he was in contact with the contractors, he knew them, and he had seniority and experience. At that time, the defendant had been in the field for about 12-13 years, while officers remained in the same position during this period for about 4-5 years (pp. 467-468).
- To the question of how the defendant had the opportunity to "play" with the budget, he replied that the only option was in the price quotes. He explained that it was possible, for example, to receive a price quote of NIS 30,000 and estimate it at about NIS 40,000. The witness has no means of controlling this because he is not familiar with the field (p. 468). When he took office, the defendant taught him how to check bills of quantities, according to which books, etc., but this was not in-depth knowledge (p. 468). The witness explained that he had the opportunity to discover that this was an exaggerated estimate only if he received another price quote that would make him see the difference (p. 468). When asked what control he had over what was done by the defendant, he replied that on the subject of dealing with contractors or work of one kind or another, he did not have the professional knowledge to understand and stop things (p. 473).
- The subcontractors needed the defendant's "good word". The main contractor did not always know the subcontractors, and therefore the opinion of the defendant is important to the subcontractor (p. 467).
To the question of how the fact that the defendant does not like a subcontractor will affect the work of that subcontractor in the district, he replied that the defendant can trick him into difficulties and make it clear that he is not interested in him (p. 469).